Steve Jones
added a comment - 16/Mar/11 22:58 Updated wicket files that implement this functionality (obviously it would be cleaner to make changes to the existing files rather than largely duplicating them)

this may be a dangerous thing, using a custom annotation has its advantages.

for example, if we use the standard @Inject and the spring project is using aspect then wicket components will be instrumented by aspectj instead of wicket. obviously, this is undesirable. users will have to add exclusions into their package-scanning config, etc.

Igor Vaynberg
added a comment - 16/Mar/11 23:05 this may be a dangerous thing, using a custom annotation has its advantages.
for example, if we use the standard @Inject and the spring project is using aspect then wicket components will be instrumented by aspectj instead of wicket. obviously, this is undesirable. users will have to add exclusions into their package-scanning config, etc.

Bruno Borges
added a comment - 17/Mar/11 04:44 - edited Yes, we recently had a discussion about this:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Spring-Annotations-supoprt-for-IoC-on-WebPages-td3320087.html
And I agree with not allowing that.
Although, I would consider renaming @SpringBean to something else that could easily fit with CDI / Spring / Guice
@WicketInject perhaps.
And the IoC could be switched at WicketApplication class without complication (I think). It is not usual, and probably not recommended to have more than one IoC anyway.